> Europeans rated him the world's most important intellectual
The New York Times Book Review said he is "arguably the most important intellectual alive."
He's not anti-Semitic; he's Jewish and is critical of some of Israel's policies.
back
1 comments
>> He's not anti-Semitic; he's Jewish...
The history of Jewish anti-semitism goes back at least to Josephus, who sold out his fellow jews to the Romans. Karl Marx, whose early writings were filled with anti-semitic hate. Etc. Etc. (I should add, BTW, that I'm not Jewish, just a friend of Israel who's never been there.)
>> ...and is critical of some of Israel's policies.
Well, that would certainly explain his hanging out with the mass murderers of Hezbollah and fronting books on Holocaust denial.
>> The New York Times Book Review said he is "arguably the most important intellectual alive."
Ah, well, that clinches it.
Would you agree that anti-Israel opinions are not anti-Semitic opinions any more than anti-Pakistan opinions are anti-Islam opinions?
This discussion provides great source material for investigating the things you can't say, and what happens when you say them. You fall down a rabbit hole. Or rather I do, and I get very confused when I am down there.
On the face of it, Israel is a state which controls a group of non-citizens through the use of tanks, walls, and laws (they are non-citizens with the limits on legal rights that go with that).
Yet there is a group, including brilliant people, who label objections to any of these policies as anti-semitic, even when those objections come from Jews, and indeed even when they come from Israeli Jews.
It is hard to believe hearing these responses that they are "honest," because it looks so much like exactly what you would do if you had a plan to shut up your opponents. It is enough to make me question the very nature of rational discourse.
And indeed as I read this, I wonder will this comment be downvoted? And if it is, will that be because it is too political, off-topic somehow? Or will it be because the agreed upon fantasy that dictates what can and cannot be said is on the wrong side of this comment?
I would agree that anti-Israel opinions are not anti-Semitic, I would agree that anti-Pakistan opinions are not anti-Islamic. I would agree that anti-Napoleon comments are not anti-French. I would agree that anti-Nazi comments are not anti-German. I would agree that anti-Bush comments are not anti-American. etc.
Yet there is a group, including brilliant people, who label objections to any of these policies as anti-semitic, even when those objections come from Jews, and indeed even when they come from Israeli Jews.
Brilliant people also have self-interests.
It's my impression that debate about Israel is much more open in Israel itself than it is in the US. Here you can't utter so much as a whisper indicating that you think their current policies may be un-optimal without being slapped with all kinds of labels.
Excellent observation about the larger openness of the debate in Israel. I have seen that as well. Indeed, when in Israel I have talked to people on both sides of the issue and never had it suggested to me THERE that I was anti-semetic for my opinions.
The closedness of national debate may be something which varies across the world, and the U.S. may be on the more-closed-than-you-woulda-thought side of that. As I read some other comments in this thread about not being able to discuss capitalism, I was thinking "they sure can in Europe." I think the Europeans are a little less self-conscious about their kinkinesses :)
I think many European countries have stricter laws against hate speech than the U.S. Which on the face of it may make us U.S.ians think we are doing better at this free speech thing. When in fact it may just be that we do a better job of unofficial suppression of free speech than the foreigners do. It reminds me of Fred's explanation of the high gun-murder rate in the U.S. in the great movie Barcelona. "It is not that Americans are more violent than Europeans, we are just better shots."